gau dog wrote:Do you feel educators have a right, if not an obligation to introduce the ID or even creationism argument in the classroom? Or is it better to ignore it completely and forcefully impose the theory of evolution on the students? Is there an issue of freedom involved, especially if a student doesn't want to agree with the theory?
I think this way: evolution is a scientific theory; creationisms and ID aren't, even though their proponents keep repeating that to make confusion (see the Paul Krugman article I gave the link in the first or second page of this topic).
So if we're talking about science classes, creationism has its place more or less like lamarckism has, in its historical context, not as an alternative theory. The same goes for other scientific theories that have their non-scientific counterparts.Another cartoon on this topic
Also, to go slightly off topic, I've read that there's little or no scientific evidence that suggests gayness is genetic. Yet many people put their faith in believing it is genetic, that they are born gay based on nothing more than their claim. I find many secularists to accept this kind of faith but not for religion.
That's true. In this specific case, I can defend a bit them a bit by saying that it has some logic, some solid ground, while with religion is everything more nebulous, depending entirely on faith. Is known that genes influence our behavior, gayness is a behavior, so it might have some genetic determinance, in some cases. That's my viewpoint.
But there are people with less understanding that just think that behavior is genetic determined, gayness is a behavior, then it's genetic. To say the least, there are secular pseudo-scientific beliefs around, I won't even cite at risk of helping these things spread!
Often seeing these sort of forum topics, making criticism and jokes on Christianity and religion, I wish you guys would stop discriminating against them and treat them with more respect and equality. For in here and the real world. I usually see lots of rude provoking and they normally don't start from the Christians.
I'm totally "pro-respect", in these or any discussions, and I've certainly seen inadequate behavior from both parts. To counter balance a bit what you said, I could say that I see religious persons with disrespectful behavior more often than the other side, but in the other hand, some non-religious individuals eventually manage to compensate that by being thrice times more disrespectful than the disrespectful religious individuals... hehe
But I must admit that it's a delicate issue, I might accidentally insult eventually, but's always unintentional, and I avoid if possible. I'll eventually take the risk, if I think that worth for the argument (such as analogies, with something that probably the person don't believe... the analogue creed must be chosen carefully), not gratuitously. Maybe these cartoons I've been showing can be a bit offensive, depends a lot on who reads... I just think they're more probably funny than offensive.
I know in the scientific community, supporters for ID and creationism are few. But the point is, there is a debate. And they do come from scientists. Evolution isn't as clean cut argument as a math problem.
Well, the thing is that there isn't. They want to make seems that there is.
They will say things like "more and more evidence is being found to be incompatible with evolution", "many and many more scientists are discrediting evolution". Then they cite some examples of troubles with evolution, and you google for 5 to 20 minutes about that and you'll find the answer. There are always the same things, their troubles for evolution are generally based in incomplete or wrong data, not to mention straw-mans of evolution.
And generally, they pass far away from the big picture of evolution. They try attack minor details that don't really affect the whole. I'm sorry for being so repetitive, but there's a clear phylogenetic tree, that's statistically improbable to result from other thing than common descent, with all structures of the beings being possible to be generated by natural selection.
That contrasts dramatically with what would be expected by special creations of the species (impossibility to found only one coherent tree of life, because the distribution of traits wouldn't be restricted by biological descent), and even with what would be expected if some adaptive traits were intelligently designed and somehow inserted in extant, naturally evolved otherwise, lineages (many IDers, like Behe, accept common ancestry) - we would still be able to found lots of chimaerisms, structures and genes that are present in non related species, and incapable of having been transmitted horizontally, and genetically and structurally distinguishable from what would be expected by convergent evolution.
But when we found similar adaptive structures in non related lineages, they don't fit with this hypothesis, but rather with convergent, independent evolution. For example, there are fishes, one Arctic and other Antarctic, which have similar or identical proteins that works as an antifreeze. But these similar proteins are made by different genes, which is compatible with convergent evolution, as each fish is in one side of the Earth. But using the same gene wouldn't be a problem if it was intelligently put there, somehow. But we simply don't found these things.
Unless, there are multiple designers which are restricted by something analogue to patents. Interestingly, that would make the whole ID thing more compatible with the evidence found, not only for that case but the whole predator-prey thing is hard to conciliate with mono-ID-ism. But it's never mentioned by their defenders, under the argument that ID doesn't try to infer about the designer (always in the singular). While they say that they don't have ulterior religious motivation, that's quite what would be expected from monotheists defending their position.